It's not untrue - it's plainly very true. The Democrats have an open border policy, and their goal is to increase their voter base. And, Carlson's words are quite clear - he's stating that it's what the Democrats wish to do and he's referring to the voter base - the electorate. That's what he flat out says.Bullshit, we can read and we can see the clips on youtube. It's clear as day he's promoting the great replacement theory.
He may be doing it in a mildly roundabout way (Barely, and still lying as he goes because even if your interpretation is 'correct' his message is still patently untrue) but he's pushing the same idea. It's plain as day and impossible to hide behind a couple of minor semantic 'differences'.
It's hopeless. Even if Tucker Carlson just straight up said "I HATE NON-WHITES AND THINK AMERICAN IS FOR EUROPEAN AMERICANS" they would dodge it. How do I know? Because that's what the shooter said very plainly in his manifesto and conservatives are claiming he's left wing. If Tucker Carlson's optics ever became bad enough he needed to be denounced they will just claim he's actually a leftist fascist because he appropriates the language of economic populism.He may be doing it in a mildly roundabout way (Barely, and still lying as he goes because even if your interpretation is 'correct' his message is still patently untrue) but he's pushing the same idea. It's plain as day and impossible to hide behind a couple of minor semantic 'differences'.
Never let bodies get to room temperature before you exploit them.Never let a crisis go to waste
I'm correct.You're funny.
No, I wouldn't dodge if he said that. But that isn't anything like anything he has said so far. This is just Progressives, as usual, claiming to know what people really think, and declaring that even if they don't say something, that's what they really mean. It's endless.It's hopeless. Even if Tucker Carlson just straight up said "I HATE NON-WHITES AND THINK AMERICAN IS FOR EUROPEAN AMERICANS" they would dodge it. How do I know? Because that's what the shooter said very plainly in his manifesto and conservatives are claiming he's left wing. If Tucker Carlson's optics ever became bad enough he needed to be denounced they will just claim he's actually a leftist fascist because he appropriates the language of economic populism.
It's easy enough to promote a violent, poisonous ideology and stay clear of advocating for outright violence. If you say, often enough, brown people are evil, they're overtaking the country, they are replacing whites, our race is doomed, we should and must stop that to preserve this country, and much more, the LOGICAL response to that is violence. If you believe that, and the government doesn't act, of course individuals should act, with or without government. That is RATIONAL in fact. That is the problem. Same thing if you promote the idea that elections are rigged, democrats are evil, they are cheating to stay in power, our rights to vote are being trampled, etc. What is the rational citizen to do? Nothing? Sit around and take it? Of course not, a patriot fights back, and if nothing else works, violence is the next rational option. Only a coward allows his country to be stolen by the evil Democrats.Promotion of violent or criminal acts do not fall under the first amendment.
The risks of free speechIt's easy enough to promote a violent, poisonous ideology and stay clear of advocating for outright violence. If you say, often enough, brown people are evil, they're overtaking the country, they are replacing whites, our race is doomed, we should and must stop that to preserve this country, and much more, the LOGICAL response to that is violence. If you believe that, and the government doesn't act, of course individuals should act, with or without government. That is RATIONAL in fact. That is the problem. Same thing if you promote the idea that elections are rigged, democrats are evil, they are cheating to stay in power, our rights to vote are being trampled, etc. What is the rational citizen to do? Nothing? Sit around and take it? Of course not, a patriot fights back, and if nothing else works, violence is the next rational option. Only a coward allows his country to be stolen by the evil Democrats.
That's in fact what we can see happening throughout history. In the face of perceived great injustice, there is armed rebellion - that is rational. That is what every propagandist knows. He need not explicitly call for violence. How many times did the governing elites call for lynchings in the Jim Crow south? I'd guess never is pretty close to the number. And yet, whites routinely engaged in violent acts to preserve white supremacy, the goal that the governing elites did promote, endlessly. What happened to those who did lynch blacks? Generally nothing because the violence was implicitly endorsed and everyone knew it. That is how this stuff works.
Great, another great post by you. LIBERALS BAD!@!!!! It's how a 10 year old debates. I hope you're proud.All anyone has to do is watch a liberal movie, t.v. show, read a book, listen to a liberal song, play a video game and get those ideas
It's not untrue - it's plainly very true. The Democrats have an open border policy, and their goal is to increase their voter base. And, Carlson's words are quite clear - he's stating that it's what the Democrats wish to do and he's referring to the voter base - the electorate. That's what he flat out says
Everyone has a fundamental right to promote a violent, poisonous ideology.It's easy enough to promote a violent, poisonous ideology and stay clear of advocating for outright violence. If you say, often enough, brown people are evil, they're overtaking the country, they are replacing whites, our race is doomed, we should and must stop that to preserve this country, and much more, the LOGICAL response to that is violence. If you believe that, and the government doesn't act, of course individuals should act, with or without government. That is RATIONAL in fact. That is the problem. Same thing if you promote the idea that elections are rigged, democrats are evil, they are cheating to stay in power, our rights to vote are being trampled, etc. What is the rational citizen to do? Nothing? Sit around and take it? Of course not, a patriot fights back, and if nothing else works, violence is the next rational option. Only a coward allows his country to be stolen by the evil Democrats.
That's in fact what we can see happening throughout history. In the face of perceived great injustice, there is armed rebellion - that is rational. That is what every propagandist knows. He need not explicitly call for violence. How many times did the governing elites call for lynchings in the Jim Crow south? I'd guess never is pretty close to the number. And yet, whites routinely engaged in violent acts to preserve white supremacy, the goal that the governing elites did promote, endlessly. What happened to those who did lynch blacks? Generally nothing because the violence was implicitly endorsed and everyone knew it. That is how this stuff works.
In other words, Tucker doesn't say "it." You imagine that that's what he really means.It's not the slightest bit true - or different than the Buffalo shooter's ideology.
The only difference is Tucker, for the most part, doesnt say the quiet part out loud. But it's there.
You carefully ignored my point....The risks of free speech
Only a 10 year old would attack the messenger and not the message..Great, another great post by you. LIBERALS BAD!@!!!! It's how a 10 year old debates. I hope you're proud.
Might as well be is not good enough for me. Free speech is so important that restrictions on it have to be the very least we can live withYou carefully ignored my point....
"Perhaps..... Do we let radical Islamists, terrorists, have free run of our social media? Should we? That's free speech."
You pointed out that calling for violence isn't protected and that's true but basically irrelevant. The kind of overt calling for violence is not the issue, hasn't really ever been the issue. It's the speech that walks people up to that line and leaves them to conclude, rationally, that violence is an acceptable option. Just for example, if I praise Dylan Roof, say I agreed with his goals, I'm not calling for violence. But I might as well be.
If you don't care about that, you can say so, but the point I was making really had nothing to do with "free speech" since the government is not limiting anyone's speech.
Name a liberal TV show. LolOnly a 10 year old would attack the messenger and not the message..
Again So liberal television, movies, songs, video games not violent and hate filled ?
Please answer the questions
Yeah, and the Jan 6 rioters were BLM and Antifa.The shooter was anti-Trump. He was anti-Fox News. He was a lefty.
Unless they are extremely unintelligent (which some are) a fascist will not say they are a fascist. They will just ask questions that lead people to their conclusions.This is just Progressives, as usual, claiming to know what people really think, and declaring that even if they don't say something, that's what they really mean. It's endless.
Name a liberal TV show. Lol
Yes, we let radical islamists and "terrorists" (accused? suspected? convicted?) say what they want too, as long as they abide by the law.You carefully ignored my point....
"Perhaps..... Do we let radical Islamists, terrorists, have free run of our social media? Should we? That's free speech."
You pointed out that calling for violence isn't protected and that's true but basically irrelevant. The kind of overt calling for violence is not the issue, hasn't really ever been the issue. It's the speech that walks people up to that line and leaves them to conclude, rationally, that violence is an acceptable option. Just for example, if I praise Dylan Roof, say I agreed with his goals, I'm not calling for violence. But I might as well be.
If you don't care about that, you can say so, but the point I was making really had nothing to do with "free speech" since the government is not limiting anyone's speech.
Those commies!!!!!The Teletubbies.
In other words, Tucker doesn't say "it." You imagine that that's what he really means.
Well, dewar is decided the first amendment doesn’t apply to him and none of you bucked.So, a killer wrote a 180 page "screed" (which I can't find anywhere, and I'd like to read it, so I could know what the hell the guy was writing, rather than rely on the media to tell me what they think it says), and so NY Governor Hochul thinks that nobody should be allowed to talk about "replacement theory."
Buffalo shooting spurs Gov. Hochul to call for crackdown of social media: ‘instruments of evil’
Citing the vile online manifesto attributed to the Buffalo shooter, Gov. Hochul on Sunday urged social media companies to crack down on hate speech— calling the sites“ instruments of ev…www.bostonherald.com
All we apparently get to know, though, is that the 180 pages consisted of racist memes and slurs, and that he repeatedly talked about "the great replacement" or something. We don't get to read it ourselves now. And, now Hochul wants to make it illegal to refer to any "replacement," which, of course, to Democrats means that nobody should be able to say that illegal immigration is a problem because it's changing American demographics quickly and unsustainably. If you say that, then it's a form of "replacement theory."
One can already see where this is going. They'll take a psycho's "manifesto" of a seriously mentally ill person who shot people in a tragic and horrid incident, and they'll overlay that on anything "conservative" or "right wing" (which nowadays is anything right of Mao, and that will be called "hate speech" which must be censored from the internet, lest someone act violently.
Suff the magic dragon a cartoon. Show, promoting smoking weedName a liberal TV show. Lol
Who is "we?" DP doesn't allow that.Yes, we let radical islamists and "terrorists" (accused? suspected? convicted?) say what they want too, as long as they abide by the law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?